The Democratic Party is at a Crossroads

[Bodhisattva]

We agree on #1 & #2. But I have no doubt that racists and bigots are also in Harris' group as well. No way there isn't. Just the sheer numbers tell me that. No way in hell with that many people you don't have them. No way.

Anti-Asian racism seems to be mostly a leftist thing. My wife has been verbally assaulted and physically attacked numerous times. Same for dozens of her friends. Not once has it been from one on the conservative side of the political spectrum. One of my wife's best friends had her business vandalized and sprayed with racist graffiti during the Antifa/BLM riots in Seattle a few years ago. Add in leftist policies like DEI and opposition to school choice as causing similar harm to outright racism.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Would you be fine with states deciding gun ownership rights? Because the ability the own a gun is so much more important than holding domain over your own body right?

Um, gun ownership is already a protected right in the US Constitution. Abortion is not.

But even then, many gun rights are decided at the state level.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Would you be fine with states deciding gun ownership rights? Because the ability the own a gun is so much more important than holding domain over your own body right?

The argument would be that the right to bear arms is protected in the Constitution. That document doesn't mention abortion, so it (and almost everything else) should be for the states to decide.

ETA: I'm too slow. @crimsonaudio got there first.

 

[spidermayin]

The argument would be that the right to bear arms is protected in the Constitution. That document doesn't mention abortion, so it (and almost everything else) should be for the states to decide.

ETA: I'm too slow. @crimsonaudio got there first.

So, let's say there was a vote to ban more types of weapons. Even though the constitution states we have the right to bear arms, we can't really legally own machine guns, m4a1s, uzis, rpgs, etc. So, let's say there was a vote to ban more types of weapons. Would you be fine with every state in the union making that vote?

 

[crimsonaudio]

So, let's say there was a vote to ban more types of weapons. Even though the constitution states we have the right to bear arms, we can't really legally own machine guns, m4a1s, uzis, rpgs, etc. So, let's say there was a vote to ban more types of weapons. Would you be fine with every state in the union making that vote?

Not @Bodhisattva, but yes, as long as those laws don't infringe upon the fundamental rights as decided by the SCOTUS. It's why there are various bans / allowances from state to state.

That's literally what the 10th Amendment is about.

 

[Bodhisattva]

So, let's say there was a vote to ban more types of weapons. Even though the constitution states we have the right to bear arms, we can't really legally own machine guns, m4a1s, uzis, rpgs, etc. So, let's say there was a vote to ban more types of weapons. Would you be fine with every state in the union making that vote?

I don't have a personal issue with restricting higher powered/capacity firearms. Caveat is that my personal preferences do not decide what is/isn't constitutional.

 

[spidermayin]

Not @Bodhisattva, but yes, as long as those laws don't infringe upon the fundamental rights as decided by the SCOTUS. It's why there are various bans / allowances from state to state.

That's literally what the 10th Amendment is about.

I guess my main point I was trying to make that if you mention adding new gun laws, many gun owners and gun loving people raise heck about it. Owning a certain type of gun shouldn't be a bigger deal than making medical decisions about your own body. But, people are fine with allowing certain states to impose restrictions on abortion access, which in my opinion, should be a federal right and not decided by the states. If one state out of 50 makes it illegal, that's one state too many for me.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Just for the record, private citizens can own some fully automatic weapons. A special federal permit is required and involves a no-foolin' background check. You also have to produce the weapon on demand, which demand can come unannounced and at any time 24/7/365.

I"m not fully up to speed on the particulars, or when a weapon crosses the line between requiring the permit and not legal for a private citizen under any circumstances. I do know that individuals can legally own Thompson submachine guns and at least some Uzis.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I guess my main point I was trying to make that if you mention adding new gun laws, many gun owners and gun loving people raise heck about it. Owning a certain type of gun shouldn't be a bigger deal than making medical decisions about your own body. But, people are fine with allowing certain states to impose restrictions on abortion access, which in my opinion, should be a federal right and not decided by the states. If one state out of 50 makes it illegal, that's one state too many for me.

If only it were that cut-and-dried abortion wouldn't be a hot-button issue...

But pro-life (anti-abortion, however you wish to phrase it) people are largely concerned not with 'controlling women' but with disallowing what they consider the murder of an unborn human. Pro-lifers believe that baby has just as much right to life as the mother, hence the lack of concern when a tumor is removed.

No need to derail this thread though - start another thread if you wish to discuss abortion - but equivocating the two is akin to comparing apples to bowling balls.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Would you be fine with states deciding gun ownership rights? Because the ability the own a gun is so much more important than holding domain over your own body right?

Here is the crux of the argument: people like you seem to think that most of the women who need abortions didn’t have domain over their body when they chose to get pregnant, which is simply not true

This isn’t even remotely the same. The forefathers thought gun ownership was important enough to be mentioned specifically in an amendment. An amendment which you and your ilk interpret very narrowly, yet want a very wide interpretation when it comes to abortion. The avenues are there to make an amendment for abortion, why don’t you get started on that?

I wouldn’t mind states having that jurisdiction at all. Crime would skyrocket in some states, citizens would move to safer states, and the political landscape would shift again.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

To clear up the machine gun question, before I get to the real purpose of the post, the FOPA of 1986 banned the sale or manufacture of machine guns not legally owned before the date of the act, 1986. This means there is a very limited pool of used guns, which is shrinking each year. The average price of one the last time I looked was around $20K, and rising. More exclusive models range all the way up to $50K. Oh, and there's the $200 to the government and a third of the states ban them outright and all the others, including this one, has a list of "prohibited persons." Been dishonorably discharged? Forget it.

I haven't read the thread all that closely, but I don't remember any emphasis being placed on Harris' 105 days to campaign as an unelected candidate. Her own bid for the presidency died in a whimper. That tells me that, if Biden had done the right, promised, thing and announced a year ago that he was not going to run, there would have been an open primary competition and another candidate would have been projected forward and it wouldn't have been Harris, that's for sure. One factor I haven't seen mentioned is the antipathy between the black community and people associated with law enforcement. She was a two-time AG of California and, in the Senate, came across as a prosecutor, which is what she was before being elected to statewide office. That came up repeatedly in her own prior bid, in addition to her far left positions from 2019. Given the short time to campaign and overcoming both inflation and her negatives were too much. She was forced onto an "anyone but Trump" position, plus a few goodies. As a consequence, she underperformed Biden by around 13 million. Meanwhile, Trump barely dropped - maybe 2 million, when all votes are finally counted. In addition, a new candidate would not have been tied to the vastly unpopular Biden-Harris administration. When all is considered, it's really a surprise she did as well as she did.

Underlying all this is of course the tectonic shift in what the Republican Party has/is becoming. The question at this point is really what the Democratic Party will become. You guys will get to see the outcome. At my age, I probably won't get to see the total shift. Let's just hope we still recognize our country at the end of four years, if an election occurs then...

 

[HSV_1969]

1. trump IS "a racist, bigot, misogynist, etc."
2. The country is NOT MOSTLY made up of racists and bigots
3. Most racists, bigots, misogynists, etc. voted for trump, not Harris

I agree wholeheartedly with point 2 above.
Are there racists on both sides? Absolutely, but I feel the frequency of claims of racism and bigotry in our country are significantly exaggerated from reality.

The way I see it, some of the most racist & bigoted people I have seen are the liberal pundits who tout the narrative of systemic bias in the US and push that saying this election was all about racism, sexism, misogyny, bigotry, etc .
For two such cases: Have Al Sharpton or Joy Reed ever seen a situation without having a significant focus on race? That is racism in its purest form.

Was #3 a driving factor in voting for Trump? For some it likely was, but I would bet that was the motivation for only a small minority of his voters.

Were several supporters of Harris voting for her with their decision heavily influenced because she was a "Woman of Color?" I would say that was a factor for some of her support. Support based on those factors would also be examples of sexism and racism.

 

[NationalTitles18]

That Rev. MLK Jr was a racist for pointing out racism. Pure racism.

 

[HSV_1969]

That Rev. MLK Jr was a racist for pointing out racism. Pure racism.

The facts now are that MLK was successful in calling out true racism that has existed and many changes have been realized in the past 60 years.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you'd see MLK constantly bringing up racial inequality in today's environment. In my judgement, he would be more likely to have the Morgan Freeman point of view, and feel like he now has the opportunity to be judged by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin.

So many on the left try to bring race into every conversation that it is a contributing factor to what I see as a recent increase in racial tensions.

 

[NationalTitles18]

The facts now are that MLK was successful in calling out true racism that has existed and many changes have been realized in the past 60 years.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you'd see MLK constantly bringing up racial inequality in today's environment. In my judgement, he would be more likely to have the Morgan Freeman point of view, and feel like he now has the opportunity to be judged by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin.

So many on the left try to bring race into every conversation that it is a contributing factor to what I see as a recent increase in racial tensions.

OK. MLK would see no racism today and you can speak for his fictionalized future self.

And anyone who brings up race for any reason foments racial tension.

Got it.

Why that sounds nothing like the 1960s-70s!

 

[bamaee04]

Anti-Asian racism seems to be mostly a leftist thing. My wife has been verbally assaulted and physically attacked numerous times. Same for dozens of her friends. Not once has it been from one on the conservative side of the political spectrum. One of my wife's best friends had her business vandalized and sprayed with racist graffiti during the Antifa/BLM riots in Seattle a few years ago. Add in leftist policies like DEI and opposition to school choice as causing similar harm to outright racism.

Unfortunately I've dealt with this myself...maybe people will finally see through the facade and admit that the far left liberal of today that is calling me a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, uneducated, idiot etc. for voting for Trump are the real group that can't respect other races, cultures, religions, beliefs, and want to squash equality.

 

[HSV_1969]

OK. MLK would see no racism today and you can speak for his fictionalized future self.

And anyone who brings up race for any reason foments racial tension.

Got it.

Why that sounds nothing like the 1960s-70s!

Do you have any rational conversations in person?

I never said no racism happens, but I have heard several pundits analyze the election results, and come through with the main reasons she lost were her sex and race.

I don't feel like that was a significant factor. If the candidates positions were reversed and she were the Republican nominee, I would have voted for Harris with no issue. Maybe for a more possible picture if it was Nikki Haley vs. Biden, I would've be all in for Haley.

Many of the current pundits try to insert race into everything, and much of the time it is just grandstanding.

 

[Huckleberry]

The facts now are that MLK was successful in calling out true racism that has existed and many changes have been realized in the past 60 years.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you'd see MLK constantly bringing up racial inequality in today's environment. In my judgement, he would be more likely to have the Morgan Freeman point of view, and feel like he now has the opportunity to be judged by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin.

So many on the left try to bring race into every conversation that it is a contributing factor to what I see as a recent increase in racial tensions.

Why can't the truth about racism exist somewhere between "racism is systemic throughout all areas of American society" and "racism no longer exists as a barrier for African-Americans"? I long ago grew tired of those activists who seem to cry racism at the drop of a hat, but I vehemently disagree that a martyr for social change like MLK would feel that everything is just dandy these days. After all, John Lewis never stopped fighting.

I think the violence associated with protests in the past few years has done more than anything else to hurt the public perception of the fight for social justice.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Do you have any rational conversations in person?

No. It's against my religion.

 

[JDCrimson]

The Republicans capitulated in 2008 when Obama was elected. I remember the media reading the Republican obituary. Yet, they got a chance to regroup and play again. Pass Citizens United, gut voting rights in Holder v Shelby, launder foreign money through the NRA. Voila, elect Trump who was given the foreign developed playbook on how to govern. The only hiccup, China unleashing covid, which in turn benefited the plan to flood the US with inflation.

Now fast forward, the Democrats have capitulated. The media is reading their obituary. The Republicans are not dumb enough to give them a chance to regroup and play again.